Why do we continue to be such a religious nation?

[greenslime1951]

Polls consistently show that 96-97% of Americans continue to profess to believe in The Man in the Sky and the attendant mythology or variations thereof. Yet, in the liberal democracies of Western Europe--the societies that most closely resemble our own-- damn, I forgot Canada--it's so easy to forget Canada--religious belief is on the wane. What's different about us? Why do we cling to the nonsense of god-ism?

The answer is probably buried in the reasons why individuals believe in religion, i.e., fear of death, fear of the unknown, wanting at least the illusion of control, providing explanations for difficult questions, social cohesion, and of course, religion as a meme. I just can't parse out what it is about America that makes us so much more susceptible to this disease, especially since as worshippers at the altar of freedom (supposedly), we should be hostile to religion, which is the very antithesis of freedom.

If you personally believe in The Man in the Sky or one of his many variants, your reply to this discussion probably won't be constructive or worthwhile, as your answer would probably be along the lines of, "Because it's all true and we Americans are smarter than everyone else." Dubious assertions.

[amanset]

96-97%? Really?

[kenobi 65]

I can't find a recent poll saying "96 or 97%", but here are a few fairly recent ones which show that 90+% of Americans believe in God:

2011 Gallup poll: 92%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/am...lieve-god.aspx

2008 Pew poll: 92%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062300818.html
(Interestingly, this one says that 1 in 5 Americans who self-identifies as "atheist" still says that they believe in God!)

[stanleyr]

A good start to ending religious beliefs was taking the "Pledge of Allegiance" out of schools because some atheist kids didn't want any part of God in their life. We have godless TV and even more Atheists getting politically involved pushing their agendas in Washington. There are hosts of other reasons that I am afraid to voice due to possible retaliation.

[runner pat]

Retaliation?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Retaliation?

*SMACK* There, I just retaliated him. His fears were well-founded.

[John Mace]

Some advice since you're new here: If you're going to start a bunch of threads on this forum, at least do some research first and bring some facts to the tables. Not just numbers you make up. And if you want reasoned debate, don't poison the well.

As for your thesis, there has been a hypothesis that the US has traditionally had a much more competitive market for religions than Europe, where many countries have established religions. The US has also been a land to which religious refugees have flocked.

European states were historically linked to the/a Church, and as the old regimes fell, the Church lost status as well. We were founded as a secular nation from the start, even if we might be surprised at how much religion was immeshed with governance in the early days of the Republic.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by stanleyr

A good start to ending religious beliefs was taking the "Pledge of Allegiance" out of schools because some atheist kids didn't want any part of God in their life. We have godless TV and even more Atheists getting politically involved pushing their agendas in Washington. There are hosts of other reasons that I am afraid to voice due to possible retaliation.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a month. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited in schools due to the subversive agitations of an army of godless atheist tykes. Sort of like an anti-Children's Crusade.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by stanleyr

A good start to ending religious beliefs was taking the "Pledge of Allegiance" out of schools because some atheist kids didn't want any part of God in their life.

So before 1954 we were less religious than we were after?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Some advice since you're new here: If you're going to start a bunch of threads on this forum, at least do some research first and bring some facts to the tables. Not just numbers you make up. And if you want reasoned debate, don't poison the well.

As for your thesis, there has been a hypothesis that the US has traditionally had a much more competitive market for religions than Europe, where many countries have established religions. The US has also been a land to which religious refugees have flocked.

European states were historically linked to the/a Church, and as the old regimes fell, the Church lost status as well. We were founded as a secular nation from the start, even if we might be surprised at how much religion was immeshed with governance in the early days of the Republic.

Some advice since you're old here: Your first paragraph contained ranting. Your two subsequent paragraphs attempted to answer my question. "LET'S SEE SOME FACTS GOLDURNIT" is almost an internet cliche. The fact that America is a more religious nation than any of the other Western secular democracies is beyond dispute, but if you don't accept that, then there's no point in any further discussion. Your first actual point, though, was well made, though your second point would seem to indicate that we should have evolved into a highly secular nation.

As much as my "insulting your beliefs" must have upset you, it would be best if you confined your discourse to an actual analysis of the question I asked; since you're old here, you must know that. Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Some advice since you're old here: Your first paragraph contained ranting. Your two subsequent paragraphs attempted to answer my question. "LET'S SEE SOME FACTS GOLDURNIT" is almost an internet cliche. The fact that America is a more religious nation than any of the other Western secular democracies is beyond dispute, but if you don't accept that, then there's no point in any further discussion. Your first actual point, though, was well made, though your second point would seem to indicate that we should have evolved into a highly secular nation.

As much as my "insulting your beliefs" must have upset you, it would be best if you confined your discourse to an actual analysis of the question I asked; since you're old here, you must know that. Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

Please don't be on my side. The image of atheists is bad enough already without having the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church weighing in.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

As much as my "insulting your beliefs" must have upset you, it would be best if you confined your discourse to an actual analysis of the question I asked; since you're old here, you must know that. Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

So it's your impression that John Mace is a religious believer?

Good luck with that.

Regards,
Shodan

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Shodan

So it's your impression that John Mace is a religious believer?

Good luck with that.

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, it's my impression, from the "LET"S US HAVE US HERE SOME FACTS" rant that preceded the more thoughtful portion of his post. As it's only an impression, it could easily be wrong. He didn't say one way or the other, but his emotional reactions led me to the hypothesis that he was a Believer.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Some advice since you're old here: Your first paragraph contained ranting.

Nope. Advice. Take it or leave it.

Your two subsequent paragraphs attempted to answer my question. "LET'S SEE SOME FACTS GOLDURNIT" is almost an internet cliche.

It's SOP here. You're not going to change that.

The fact that America is a more religious nation than any of the other Western secular democracies is beyond dispute, but if you don't accept that, then there's no point in any further discussion.

It's certainly true, so there is no reason to make up "facts" in support of it. There are actual facts out there aplenty.

Your first actual point, though, was well made, though your second point would seem to indicate that we should have evolved into a highly secular nation.

Not really. The Churches are seen as institutions separate and apart from the state. That is not historically the case in Europe.

As much as my "insulting your beliefs" must have upset you, it would be best if you confined your discourse to an actual analysis of the question I asked; since you're old here, you must know that. Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

I'm an atheist. I just don't go around insulting religious people as a matter of course.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by stanleyr

A good start to ending religious beliefs was taking the "Pledge of Allegiance" out of schools because some atheist kids didn't want any part of God in their life. We have godless TV and even more Atheists getting politically involved pushing their agendas in Washington. There are hosts of other reasons that I am afraid to voice due to possible retaliation.

You are aware, aren't you, that the Pledge of Allegiance was not taken out of schools, and that the 'under God' part, was added?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by fumster

Please don't be on my side. The image of atheists is bad enough already without having the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church weighing in.

I gather that you are objecting to my tone.

I was not attempting to establish a debate about the relative merits of Belief and atheism. I was attempting to ask why Belief is so rampant in this country, especially given some of our professed social values.

I suspect that the negative image of atheists stems from their exasperation due to the great reluctance of Believers (or anyone else, for that matter) to engage in any debate about religion from a logical standpoint. Instead, we get nonsense about the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

In any case, John Mace is the only one so far to have even attempted to answer my question---what is the causal basis for our extremely high percentage of professed Believers?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

much as my "insulting your beliefs" must have upset you, it would be best if you confined your discourse to an actual analysis of the question I asked; since you're old here, you must know that. Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

The only belief of John Mace's that you have apparently insulted is the one that we attract posters of superior debating skills.

Your claim for religiosity, while more or less correct, was backed up by a false claim.
You then poisoned the well of this thread by indicating that you are not going to believe that anyone with any intelligence would hold a different opinion than you hold and further made a comment that was a straw man argument (since it is unlikely that anyone in this board would argue in the silly way that you pretended).

So, basically, you have posted a rant, one that belongs in The BBQ Pit, pretending that you want a discussion that you seem to not to actually want to have, since you have already insulted half the possible participants while attrributing to them something silly that they would never say.

I would suggest that you heed the advice of other posters rather than pretending that you have a clue on how to get along on this board.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm an atheist. I just don't go around insulting religious people as a matter of course.

Nor do I. However, I feel perfectly free to "insult" any and all absurd ideas and ideologies.

This is a distinction that many, many, many people fail to understand. In attacking a (presumably flawed) idea and/or system of thought, one is not also attacking anyone who subscribes to such an idea.

The reactions to such illusory "attacks" refer to a particular type of cognitive bias where one defends one's own ideas not on their merits, but simply because those ideas are one's own. This can be seen in the phrase, to "adopt" an idea; one literally nurtures and bonds with it. This is one of many reasons why religious mythology is so pervasive.

I apologize for insulting you by implying that you were a Believer.

[fumster]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Nor do I. However, I feel perfectly free to "insult" any and all absurd ideas and ideologies.

And there is place to do that called the BBQ Pit. Knock yourself out.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The only belief of John Mace's that you have apparently insulted is the one that we attract posters of superior debating skills.

Your claim for religiosity, while more or less correct, was backed up by a false claim.
You then poisoned the well of this thread by indicating that you are not going to believe that anyone with any intelligence would hold a different opinion than you hold and further made a comment that was a straw man argument (since it is unlikely that anyone in this board would argue in the silly way that you pretended).

So, basically, you have posted a rant, one that belongs in The BBQ Pit, pretending that you want a discussion that you seem to not to actually want to have, since you have already insulted half the possible participants while attrributing to them something silly that they would never say.

I would suggest that you heed the advice of other posters rather than pretending that you have a clue on how to get along on this board.

Yes, yes, yes. Anything on an internet board that you don't agree with is a "rant." I "poisoned the well" by saying that those who "hold a different opinion than (you) hold" are excluded from the discussion. Tired, tired internet tropes, and not even remotely true, SINCE:

I never offered an opinion as to why religion is so rampant in this country. I did try to exclude Believers from the debate since, AS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE, said debate would likely veer off into an argument about the merits of religion.

If you, rather than "ranting," would like to attempt to actually answer my question (rather than scolding me about how I post), that would be quite welcome.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by fumster

And there is place to do that called the BBQ Pit. Knock yourself out.

Shouldn't be confined to one area. Stupid ideas cost wealth, opportunities, and lives.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Shouldn't be confined to one area. Stupid ideas cost wealth, opportunities, and lives.

Making your own rules for a forum you just stepped into isn't going to end well. There's nothing more we like than a civil, reasoned debate, backed up by the best facts you can muster. Got any?

[Zakalwe]

Well. This should be relatively violent for the short period it lasts...

I think John has pretty much nailed a lot of it. Here we shop for religions just like everything else. Don't like Baptists? Try the Methodists, they're right next door. Still not happy? Presbyterians (that's a hard word to spell) around the corner.

In many European countries, finding something other than the "state" religion is not quite as easy.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Shouldn't be confined to one area. Stupid ideas cost wealth, opportunities, and lives.

All the more reason to argue your point without it being riddled with basic errors.

Bring reasonably cited facts
Avoid basic rhetorical fallacies
Avoid basic logical fallacies

Making shit up, insulting your potential opposition right in your OP and attributing positions to people that haven't even shown up yet is typically considered childish.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Shouldn't be confined to one area. Stupid ideas cost wealth, opportunities, and lives.

Please, please, tell us more about how you think we should run this board. I'm fascinated.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by fumster

So before 1954 we were less religious than we were after?

I don't know if we were less religious but in many ways it was less a part of the public discourse. Everybody knew people like Eisenhower, MacArthur and Truman believed in God (insofar as they went to church, etc., etc.) but there wasn't a lot of time spent deciphering their personal relationship with God.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Though I already said that Believers probably shouldn't even bother to respond to this thread.

You can isue that sort of advisory. But on this board, it carries little weight and will be ignored.


As to the question at hand, there have been many threads in the past discussing this matter and it has generally been inconclusive. Mostly it has leaned in the direction of the argument about the US having had an open, dynamic "Religion Market" as opposed to a static establishmentarian environment. While at any given time the elites would tend to drift into mostly nominal, merely ritual externals of religion while living de-facto secularist lives, as they have in most civilizations, the general populace had an active open market of various flavors of piety.

Add to that how during the successive migratory waves, minority religions (specially the Catholic - Irish, Italians, Poles, Hispanics - and Jewish groups) were a powerful element of stability for the immigrants to feel they were integrating without losing their identities altogether. Without an established church, much of the population did not get to experience religion itself as the enemy of their liberty, and even for instance in the case of African Americans the Black Christian Churches and the northern Congregationalists were seen as advocates for liberty -- at most they'd associate, say Southern Baptists with their oppressors, but not Theism itself.

And this extends to others in the population through a history influenced by the long time that the US had an "open frontier" -- which meant if you did not like how things were going where you were, you had the choice to just get up and head out to somewhere where you could do things your way. This attitude became quickly extended to the notion that if your birth church disappoints you, then shop around for one who fits you or even start your own! The USA is a veritable hothouse of New Religious Movements ever since its founding. Be they homegrown or imported the US has been fertile grounds for Shakers, Mormons, Millerites (and their 7th Day Adventist and Jehovah's Witness offshoots), Christian Scientists, Snake Handlers, Branham Ministries, Nation of Islam, Moonies, Church of Satan, Scientology, Wicca, you name it. Again, the reaction is to the established churches, not to the notion of belief itself.

Essentially Americans just can't see where is the great threat from BELIEF ITSEF -- just that there are Churches That Do Bad Things and you gotta avoid those. A lot of people live de-facto secularist lives showing up at their place of worship only for High Holidays, Weddings and Funerals for the community togetherness thing; or claiming that they're not in an organized religion but are "spritual" in some fuzzily-defined manner.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Yes, yes, yes. Anything on an internet board that you don't agree with is a "rant." I "poisoned the well" by saying that those who "hold a different opinion than (you) hold" are excluded from the discussion. Tired, tired internet tropes, and not even remotely true,

False.

You made a point to be insulting of other's beliefs. Anyone entering the discussion from the perspective of a believer, therefore, has already been branded as not possessing a valid perspective. This is not a "tired trope," it is simply a recognition that the internet is filled with people who prefer to dominate discussions by defining the terms in way that will exclude anyone who opposes their position.

A discussion regarding why the U.S. continues to be a very religious nation at a time when similar societies in Europe have become secular or non-religious could be a good discussion. Limiting the discussion to only people who are themselves secular is simply a way for someone to post silly nonsense about the limited intelligence or poor reasoning skills of religious people. Had you really wanted to discuss the point that you claim to, you would have posted without the insults.

The real "tired trope" is the OP that seems unable to discuss the topic without resorting to insults. Typical anonymous, juvenile intarweb trope, indeed.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

This is the funniest thing I've read in a month. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited in schools due to the subversive agitations of an army of godless atheist tykes. Sort of like an anti-Children's Crusade.

Particularly because the idea that it's no longer said in schools is 100% false. Religious objectors just have the right to not say it, or to just leave out the part they don't want to say. You simply can't be compelled to say it.

It's honestly the most sane way of dealing with religion that I've seen regarding public schools.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Grey

All the more reason to argue your point without it being riddled with basic errors.

Bring reasonably cited facts
Avoid basic rhetorical fallacies
Avoid basic logical fallacies

Making shit up, insulting your potential opposition right in your OP and attributing positions to people that haven't even shown up yet is typically considered childish.

There were no "basic errors" in my post. I didn't "make shit up." I said that America was highly religious. Oh wait, if you say that isn't true, it must not be.

I didn't bother to click on your links, nor do I need to: I am aware of what such fallacies are. The definitions are irrelevant because I committed none of those fallacies. Oh wait, if you say that I did, I must have.

I find it risible that you are doing many of the things in your post that you accuse me of doing. I've found, though, that on the internet, people have one set of rules for others' behavior and another set for their own.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

False.

You made a point to be insulting of other's beliefs. Anyone entering the discussion from the perspective of a believer, therefore, has already been branded as not possessing a valid perspective. This is not a "tired trope," it is simply a recognition that the internet is filled with people who prefer to dominate discussions by defining the terms in way that will exclude anyone who opposes their position.

A discussion regarding why the U.S. continues to be a very religious nation at a time when similar societies in Europe have become secular or non-religious could be a good discussion. Limiting the discussion to only people who are themselves secular is simply a way for someone to post silly nonsense about the limited intelligence or poor reasoning skills of religious people. Had you really wanted to discuss the point that you claim to, you would have posted without the insults.

The real "tired trope" is the OP that seems unable to discuss the topic without resorting to insults. Typical anonymous, juvenile intarweb trope, indeed.

Let me ask you this, and I'd like thoughtful, honest, noncritical answers (if you are capable at this point):

1. Why should "beliefs" or any other ideas be immune from criticism?
2. How does criticism of a belief equate to criticism of the persons who hold that belief?

I did say that I RECOMMENDED Believers not participate in the discussion, because I felt (based on past experience) that they could not do so without veering off into being defensive about their belief systems, i.e., they wouldn't even try to answer my question. Look at the responses and you'll see that my fears were justified. I do, in fact, believe that only non-Believers can have a rational discussion about religion, since having a religious belief is ipso facto proof of viewing the topic irrationally.

I didn't, nor had I the power to, "exclude" Believers from the discussion, and your saying that I did is another tired internet trope: hyperbole.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Essentially Americans just can't see where is the great threat from BELIEF ITSEF -- just that there are Churches That Do Bad Things and you gotta avoid those. A lot of people live de-facto secularist lives showing up at their place of worship only for High Holidays, Weddings and Funerals for the community togetherness thing; or claiming that they're not in an organized religion but are "spritual" in some fuzzily-defined manner.

You provide an excellent thesis in that in America, there has been less historical reason to avoid and limit church institutions, as they were always very distinct from government in our history. The evil that organized religion had historically done in Europe didn't migrate across the Atlantic, witch-burning, etc. notwithstanding.

An interesting question that arises, then, is that in the absence of societal pressure, why would so many people be churchgoers and professed believers? One answer might be that such pressure did exist for quite some time in American history. People who didn't attend church were sometimes fined, and often ostracized. Even now, to say that you're an atheist is akin to saying that you cook and eat babies.

Richard Dawkins makes a compelling argument for the corrosive effect of what you call "belief itself." In a nutshell, he argues that belief obscures reality, and amounts to a waste of humanity's cognitive resources. It does make one wonder where a totally nonreligious humanity might have been by now in terms of social and technological development. Bruno at the stake, Galileo imprisoned, the Monkey Trial...

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

There were no "basic errors" in my post. I didn't "make shit up." I said that America was highly religious.

Opinions go in IMHO. If you are stating that as a fact, you need some evidence, and so far, you've declined to supply any, and you've arrogantly declined to read helpful links supplied by others, saying "I didn't bother to click on your links, nor do I need to..."

Your OP is in the "Are you still beating your wife?" category. "Why do we continue to be religious" is a loaded question. Establish your premise first, then we'll talk.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

There were no "basic errors" in my post.

Actually, this part -

If you personally believe in The Man in the Sky or one of his many variants, your reply to this discussion probably won't be constructive or worthwhile, as your answer would probably be along the lines of, "Because it's all true and we Americans are smarter than everyone else."

is a near-textbook example of poisoning the well.

I did say that I RECOMMENDED Believers not participate in the discussion...

How about if everyone participates in the discussion, and points out your errors, misstatements, and the generally poor quality of the OP?

That might be fun!

Yes, it's my impression, from the "LET"S US HAVE US HERE SOME FACTS" rant that preceded the more thoughtful portion of his post.

Maybe that is part of your problem. You appear to think that atheists on the SDMB share your disdain for FACTS. That is not my experience, at least not universally.

Regards,
Shodan

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Maybe that is part of your problem. You appear to think that atheists on the SDMB share your disdain for FACTS. That is not my experience, at least not universally.

Regards,
Shodan

Are FACTS different from facts? Are they different from f*a*c*t*s or facts? Because I understand your confusion if they are: I supplied many facts, but I admit, no "FACTS" at all (whatever they are, in that they are obviously distinct from "facts.")

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Opinions go in IMHO. If you are stating that as a fact, you need some evidence, and so far, you've declined to supply any, and you've arrogantly declined to read helpful links supplied by others, saying "I didn't bother to click on your links, nor do I need to..."

Your OP is in the "Are you still beating your wife?" category. "Why do we continue to be religious" is a loaded question. Establish your premise first, then we'll talk.

If you don't accept "America is a highly religious nation" as an ingoing premise, then we can't talk, as your perception of America must be fundamentally different from mine.

You can still honestly answer what you consider to be a "loaded question," by the way (the responses this thread have dredged up pretty much prove that any question dealing with religion is a loaded one).

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

If you don't accept "America is a highly religious nation" as an ingoing premise, then we can't talk, as your perception of America must be fundamentally different from mine.

If you won't defend your premise, why are we having this "debate"? You might prefer a diatribe in a different forum.

As far as religion being a loaded question, what did you expect? Everyone would agree with you? Ever notice how many religions there are in the world?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Are FACTS different from facts? Are they different from f*a*c*t*s or facts? Because I understand your confusion if they are: I supplied many facts, but I admit, no "FACTS" at all (whatever they are, in that they are obviously distinct from "facts.")

I have no idea what point you are attempting here. Fortunately, I doubt it matters.

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I just can't parse out what it is about America that makes us so much more susceptible to this disease,

This is not a criticism of a belief; it is a claim that the very holding of one set of beliefs, (often differing widely in their tenets) is a "disease" which, by any rational underrstanding means that the belivers are sick.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

especially since as worshippers at the altar of freedom (supposedly), we should be hostile to religion, which is the very antithesis of freedom.

This might be considered as simply a criticism of religion, although having poisoned the well with the first clause, it smacks of condescension, further poisoning the well.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

If you personally believe in The Man in the Sky or one of his many variants, your reply to this discussion probably won't be constructive or worthwhile, as your answer would probably be along the lines of, "Because it's all true and we Americans are smarter than everyone else." Dubious assertions.

Referring to worship as believing in "The Man in the Sky" is insulting on several levels, although you do not seem to be able to understand how that would be true.
Proposing that anyone who actually holds a belief in a deity would be incapable of providing a legitimate answer is a direct insult and adding that anyone with such a belief could "probably" only provide an answer that would never be found on this mesage board is both insulting and a display of serious ignorance regarding this board's membership.

Now, if you really want to discuss what you claimed that you wanted to discuss in the OP, I would be happy to close this thread and let you open a new OP without the well poisoning and insults and we can see where that thread goes. On the other hand, if you are simply here to rile folks up, I can let this thread play out in the direction that you set it with your poorly constructed OP.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Musicat

If you won't defend your premise, why are we having this "debate"? You might prefer a diatribe in a different forum.

As far as religion being a loaded question, what did you expect? Everyone would agree with you? Ever notice how many religions there are in the world?

When the premise is so obviously true it doesn't need defending, then I tend not to bother even if I'm goaded to do so. In any event, other posters have validated my premise (though the poll results they report showed only 90-92% of the population professing religious belief, rather than the 96-97% I asserted, I think that does support the premise, "America is highly religious").

I said that in response to another poster's remark that I had asked a loaded question. My response to that was, in effect, "So what? Why not answer it anyway?" And as far as whether anyone would "agree" with me--did you notice I asked a QUESTION, and didn't suggest an ANSWER?

[Bryan Ekers]

In hole. Stop digging.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

Are FACTS different from facts? Are they different from f*a*c*t*s or facts? Because I understand your confusion if they are: I supplied many facts, but I admit, no "FACTS" at all (whatever they are, in that they are obviously distinct from "facts.")

No. You provided two purported facts: that the U.S. is highly religious, (a point you tainted by exaggerating to the extreme), and that Europeans are far less religious. Two does not equate to "many" in the English language, so your attempt to dodge the fact, (however it is spelled or illustrated), that you have been really light on facts in your presentations simply indicates that you are more interested in plaqying games than discussing the topic that you claimed to want to discuss.

Some suggested facts would include actual percentages of believers and non-believers in the U.S. and elsewhere, the locations where belief is higher or lower, the general dates when belief declined in those areas where it has declined, and so forth. Unless your real purpose is to simply show scorn for people whose world views are different from your own, then providing a serious factual basis for the discussion is a better place to start than merely making exaggerated and insulting claims about the people described by your topic.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I gather that you are objecting to my tone.

I was not attempting to establish a debate about the relative merits of Belief and atheism. I was attempting to ask why Belief is so rampant in this country, especially given some of our professed social values.

I suspect that the negative image of atheists stems from their exasperation due to the great reluctance of Believers (or anyone else, for that matter) to engage in any debate about religion from a logical standpoint. Instead, we get nonsense about the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.

In any case, John Mace is the only one so far to have even attempted to answer my question---what is the causal basis for our extremely high percentage of professed Believers?

Well, mocery is not going to get you reasoned answers. I suspect very few believers of any stripe hold to a belief in The Man in the Sky. Take it from there.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

When the premise is so obviously true it doesn't need defending...

So, in spite of repeated requests, you still refuse to provide proof of something that is "so obviously true". Is this a new debating tactic?

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Now, if you really want to discuss what you claimed that you wanted to discuss in the OP, I would be happy to close this thread and let you open a new OP without the well poisoning and insults and we can see where that thread goes. On the other hand, if you are simply here to rile folks up, I can let this thread play out in the direction that you set it with your poorly constructed OP.

It's yet another internet trope that anyone posts threads on discussion boards solely (or even primarily) to "rile things up." This, I believe, is called "trolling" and is what you are, as I understand it, obligated to accuse someone who articulates opinions you disagree with of doing. In reality, the vast majority, myself included, ask questions because they want answers.

I truly feel that religion and religious believers are irrational and that believers are utterly incapable of discussing their beliefs in a logical and cogent matter. This feeling is the result of decades of sad and futile experience of trying to introduce logic into debates about religion. It also relates to my conviction--like it or not--that in order to believe in a deity, the existence for which there is not an iota of evidence, one must short-circuit the thinking processes which normally kick in when we are attempting to determine if something is true and/or real; one must engage in a kind of doublethink to maintain "faith" in, well, anything, in the absence of proof. In support of my assertion that a logical debate about religion with believers is impossible, I would simply point to the responses on this thread.

In any event, my question was not about the merits of religion but rather, a social phenomenon. That got lost very quickly in the shuffle, and I concede that letting my disdain for religion show in my OP may have been a causal factor in that. As I've noted, people cherish their beliefs and react vehemently to even an implied "attack" on them. That's probably why criticism of religious beliefs is generally considered socially taboo---the vehement reactions such criticism elicits.

As I don't think this community is actually capable of dispassionately discussing the actual question I asked, and since so many people seem to have gotten exercised by it, I don't think this thread should be continued, nor should it be reborn under another name. I did receive, from a couple of people who cut through all the blather, some interesting hypotheses to consider.

I frankly don't see the logic in the taboo against criticising religious mythology (as opposed to other equally dubious ideas; I doubt that I would be firestormed for saying that there really were no such things as elves and fairies), but I'm willing to respect it from here on out. I do think that religion (and irrationality in general) has been a major, perhaps the major, cause of the suffering the human race has undergone since the beginning of civilization and thus should be subject to severe and frequent criticism, but as long as we worship ignorance itself, such criticism will remain taboo. I acknowledge this unfortunate fact.

[John Mace]

This MB is not particularly friendly towards religion. Anti-religious feelings are pretty common. If you can't rally the poster here around an argument against religion, you're doing something seriously wrong. It's not because you're the victim of blindly religious posters who can't accept criticism.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Well, mocery is not going to get you reasoned answers. I suspect very few believers of any stripe hold to a belief in The Man in the Sky. Take it from there.

OK--The Man in the Sky has many incarnations: God, Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Kukulkan, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. There are very few religions without a deity or deities (some Eastern religions appear not to have them in the way we define them). So I would say that most, if not all, believers, especially in this country, do believe in a deity or deities. Monotheism implies belief in a single all-powerful deity, which I have--yes, mockingly--referred to as The Man in the Sky since no one appellation would have been all-inclusive (tens of millions have been slaughtered, in fact, in debates over exactly what his name is).

If you like, then, insert (name of monotheistic deity) for Man In the Sky, and go from there. I don't really see the difference in that something that doesn't exist could have any name we choose to give it, but as I've noted, the distinction has often, historically, been a matter of life and death.

[greenslime1951]

Originally Posted by John Mace

This MB is not particularly friendly towards religion. Anti-religious feelings are pretty common. If you can't rally the poster here around an argument against religion, you're doing something seriously wrong. It's not because you're the victim of blindly religious posters who can't accept criticism.

I don't see myself as the "victim" of anything, but if I did, it would be of a silly social taboo against criticising one of the dumbest and most harmful ideas in the entire human experience.

[Ulfreida]

Huh. I didn't understand any of the replies to the OP as being opposed to discussion of the topic. So far it's all been about the OP himself, not his topic. And justly so.

I'd be interested in such a topic myself, but only without the vitriol, contempt, and hyperbole. Don't see that happening here though.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

It's yet another internet trope that anyone posts threads on discussion boards solely (or even primarily) to "rile things up." This, I believe, is called "trolling" and is what you are, as I understand it, obligated to accuse someone who articulates opinions you disagree with of doing. In reality, the vast majority, myself included, ask questions because they want answers.

Aside from your insulting language ands refusal to actually address your own OP, I do not actually disagree with your original point. I think that it would even be interesting to discuss the why of that point. I have even offered you the opportunity to restart this nonsense with that goal in mind. You are the one who has raised the issue of trolling, but your general behavior, (not your actual question), is what is inclining me to believe that you may, indeed, be leaning in that direction.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I truly feel that religion and religious believers are irrational and that believers are utterly incapable of discussing their beliefs in a logical and cogent matter.

So what? That belief is shared by a majority of posters in this forum. It does not, however, have anything to do with the question you purported to ask in the OP.

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

In any event, my question was not about the merits of religion but rather, a social phenomenon. That got lost very quickly in the shuffle, and I concede that letting my disdain for religion show in my OP may have been a causal factor in that. As I don't think this community is actually capable of dispassionately discussing the actual question I asked, and since so many people seem to have gotten exercised by it, I don't think this thread should be continued, nor should it be reborn under another name. I did receive, from a couple of people who cut through all the blather, some interesting hypotheses to consider.

So, if you can't insult people, you are not concerned with pursuing the question? You are giving more reason to consider the trolling hypothesis--something it would do you well to persuade me was not true.
(Interestingly, given your several times repeated claim that believers are not capable of rational discussion, the first clear articulation of a response to your question was posted by a believer. On the other hand, several of the posters who have taken you to task for a really poor OP and attitude are noted non-believers.)

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I frankly don't see the logic in the taboo against criticising religious mythology (as opposed to other equally dubious ideas; I doubt that I would be firestormed for saying that there really were no such things as elves and fairies), but I'm willing to respect it from here on out. I do think that religion (and irrationality in general) has been a major, perhaps the major, cause of the suffering the human race has undergone since the beginning of civilization and thus should be subject to severe and frequent criticism, but as long as we worship ignorance itself, such criticism will remain taboo. I acknowledge this unfortunate fact.

There is no taboo against discussing (or even deriding) beliefs or mythology and the subject bubbles up, (sometimes at length), on this forum several times a year. There is, however, a general distrust of posters that claim to ask one question while going out of their way to insult a group that is mentioned by the question in a context that is irrelevant to the actual question.